Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Functional Theory Of Congressional Standing, Jonathan Remy Nash
A Functional Theory Of Congressional Standing, Jonathan Remy Nash
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court has offered scarce and inconsistent guidance on congressional standing—that is, when houses of Congress or members of Congress have Article III standing. The Court’s most recent foray into congressional standing has prompted lower courts to infuse analysis with separation-ofpowers concerns in order to erect a high standard for congressional standing. It has also invited the Department of Justice to argue that Congress lacks standing to enforce subpoenas against executive branch actors. Injury to congressional litigants should be defined by reference to Congress’s constitutional functions. Those functions include gathering relevant information, casting votes, and (even when no vote …
Judicial Compensation And The Definition Of Judicial Power In The Early Republic, James E. Pfander
Judicial Compensation And The Definition Of Judicial Power In The Early Republic, James E. Pfander
Michigan Law Review
Article III's provision for the compensation of federal judges has been much celebrated for the no-diminution provision that forecloses judicial pay cuts. But other features of Article Ill's compensation provision have largely escaped notice. In particular, little attention has been paid to the framers' apparent expectation that Congress would compensate federal judges with salaries alone, payable from the treasury at stated times. Article III's presumption in favor of salary-based compensation may rule out fee-based compensation, which was a common form of judicial compensation in England and the colonies but had grown controversial by the time of the framing. Among other …
Appellate Courts Inside And Out, Maxwell L. Stearns
Appellate Courts Inside And Out, Maxwell L. Stearns
Michigan Law Review
While the United States Supreme Court has been the object of seemingly endless scholarly commentary, the United States Courts of Appeals are just now coming into their own as a subject of independent academic inquiry. This is an important development when one considers that the vast bulk of relevant precedents governing most federal court litigation comes not from the Supreme Court, but rather from the United States Courts of Appeals. Because relatively few courts of appeals decisions are reviewed in the Supreme Court, with rare exception, the federal circuit courts provide the functional equivalent of that Court's proverbial "last word." …
Suspecting The States: Supreme Court Review Of State-Court State-Law Judgments, Laura S. Fitzgerald
Suspecting The States: Supreme Court Review Of State-Court State-Law Judgments, Laura S. Fitzgerald
Michigan Law Review
At the Supreme Court these days, it is unfashionable to second-guess states' fealty to federal law without real proof that they are ignoring it. As the Court declared in Alden v. Maine: "We are unwilling to assume the States will refuse to honor the Constitution or obey the binding laws of the United States. The good faith of the States thus provides an important assurance that 'this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" Accordingly, without proof that a state has "systematic[ally]" …
How Is Constitutional Law Made?, Tracey E. George, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
How Is Constitutional Law Made?, Tracey E. George, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Bismarck famously remarked: "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." This witticism applies with peculiar force to constitutional law. Judges and commentators examine the sausage (the Supreme Court's doctrine), but ignore the messy details of its production. Maxwell Stearns has demonstrated, with brilliant originality, that the Court fashions constitutional law through process-based rules of decision such as outcome voting, stare decisis, and justiciability. Employing "social choice" economic theory, Professor Stearns argues that the Court, like all multimember decisionmaking bodies, strives to formulate rules that promote both rationality and fairness (p. 4). Viewed through the lens …
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Michigan Law Review
The Bill of Rights, by means of open-ended terms such as "freedom of speech," "equal protection," or "due process," refers to moral criteria, which take on constitutional status by virtue of being thus referenced. We can disagree about whether the proper methodology for judicial application of these criteria is originalist or nonoriginalist. The originalist looks, not to the true content of the moral criteria named by the Constitution, but to the framers' beliefs about that content; the nonoriginalist tries to determine what the criteria truly require, and ignores or gives less weight to the framers' views. Bracketing this disagreement, however, …
"Federal Question" Jurisdiction -- A Snare And A Delusion, Ernest J. London
"Federal Question" Jurisdiction -- A Snare And A Delusion, Ernest J. London
Michigan Law Review
Poorly defined criteria in the area of jurisdiction are especially wasteful, generating as they often do expensive and protracted litigation over threshold issues, rather than promoting the speedy determination of lawsuits on their merits. One of the most perplexing exercises in American law practice is the effort to define with certainty the original jurisdiction of the lower federal courts in matters where there is no diversity of citizenship. Although this general head of federal jurisdiction has persistently and pervasively been characterized as "federal question" jurisdiction, it is doubtful whether there is, in fact, original jurisdiction in the lower federal courts …
Constitutional Law-Federal Courts-Diversity Jurisdiction- District Of Columbia Citizens, John D. Mcleod S.Ed.
Constitutional Law-Federal Courts-Diversity Jurisdiction- District Of Columbia Citizens, John D. Mcleod S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The Act of Congress of April 20, 1940, provided that district courts should exercise original jurisdiction over actions "between citizens of different States, or citizens of the District of Columbia, the Territory of Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory . . . . " The committee report and the title indicate the purpose to extend to citizens of the District of Columbia and the territories the right to sue in federal district courts on grounds solely of diversity of citizenship. Although the committee reports indicated no constitutional difficulties, the majority of the lower federal courts which considered the …
Constitutional Law--- Status Of Courts Of District Of Columbia
Constitutional Law--- Status Of Courts Of District Of Columbia
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiffs, justices of District of Columbia courts, protested the application by the Comptroller-General of an Act of Congress reducing their salaries, alleging that they felt it their duty to have the status of these courts defined. The majority of the Court, answering questions certified by the Court of Claims; held that section l of Article III of the federal constitution applied to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and forbade a reduction of the compensation of the justices thereof during their continuance in office, on the theory …